Do YOU want to be the TF?

I see Chrissy had the baby.

Congrats.

Did "it" fall off?

Cdeming wrote in post #10041344
I just want you to know, I didn't read any of that. Too many numbers and my brain shuts off.

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

You'll get your share of numbers as he grows, one way or another. You know, trying to fit tuition/bail into the budget.

For those who haven't seen this, this link was emailed to me by my kiteboarder friends and shows why they and other watersports folks have the wild and crazy rep they do -- hold onto your seats and you might want to don a tinfoil cap:

http://www.kiteroam.co​m …urfing_has_been​_cancelled

20droger wrote in post #10042276
Sounds like a personal problem to me.

You'll get your share of numbers as he grows, one way or another. You know, trying to fit tuition/bail into the budget.

And it's a boy... boys are always measuring things.

20droger wrote in post #10040000
Neither is infinity FoV, since FoV (field of view) is another name for AoV (angle of view), which is an angular characteristic.

Circular fisheye lenses give you 180° in all three optical planes. The Sunex super fisheye lens gives you 185°. How much more do you want?

If you mean a zero FoV, then that requires an infinite effective focal length, which is not realizable no matter what you stack.

However, I could stack a few 3.0× TCs on a 1200mm and get an awfully damned small AoV. For example:

1200mm * 4 (3× TC) * APS-C = 97200mm effective, which works out to 0.0159° or 0.956 minutes of arc.

Anything less than 1 minute of arc would qualify as awfully damned small, I think.

Lol, I was not trying to be serious at all, Roger! I'm with Chrissy, too many numbers to think of. But we sure do appreciate your knowledge, once again. You, sir, are a human encyclopedia. Who needs Wikipedia?

krepta wrote in post #10042691
Lol, I was not trying to be serious at all, Roger! I'm with Chrissy, too many numbers to think of. But we sure do appreciate your knowledge, once again. You, sir, are a human encyclopedia. Who needs Wikipedia?

Where do you think Roger gets all this from?

krepta wrote in post #10042691
Lol, I was not trying to be serious at all, Roger! I'm with Chrissy, too many numbers to think of. But we sure do appreciate your knowledge, once again. You, sir, are a human encyclopedia. Who needs Wikipedia?

We've got "Rogerpedia!"

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10042817
We've got "Rogerpedia!"

Which is normally more accurate!

I also got lost in the numbers - I work with numbers all day soseeing them during my lunch break tends to switch my brain off (if it was on in the first place

tonylong wrote in post #10042347
For those who haven't seen this, this link was emailed to me by my kiteboarder friends and shows why they and other watersports folks have the wild and crazy rep they do -- hold onto your seats and you might want to don a tinfoil cap:

http://www.kiteroam.co​m …urfing_has_been​_cancelled

My brain is burning.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #10041925
I see Chrissy had the baby.

Congrats.

Did "it" fall off?

Thanks! It didn't fall off, thank God. After the trauma of giving birth without drugs (I like to brag about that when I can ) I don't think I could have handled that!

20droger wrote in post #10042276
Sounds like a personal problem to me.

You'll get your share of numbers as he grows, one way or another. You know, trying to fit tuition/bail into the budget.

I'm DEFINITELY not ready to think about that...

tonylong wrote in post #10042347
For those who haven't seen this, this link was emailed to me by my kiteboarder friends and shows why they and other watersports folks have the wild and crazy rep they do -- hold onto your seats and you might want to don a tinfoil cap:

http://www.kiteroam.co​m …urfing_has_been​_cancelled

. I mean . There should be some sort of warning for men that watching that may do some damage to their masculinity...I even feel a little dirty for watching that...

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10042817
We've got "Rogerpedia!"

I love Rogerpedia! It's flowing with fun/pointless facts!

20droger wrote in post #10040000
Neither is infinity FoV, since FoV (field of view) is another name for AoV (angle of view), which is an angular characteristic.

Circular fisheye lenses give you 180° in all three optical planes. The Sunex super fisheye lens gives you 185°. How much more do you want?

If you mean a zero FoV, then that requires an infinite effective focal length, which is not realizable no matter what you stack.

However, I could stack a few 3.0× TCs on a 1200mm and get an awfully damned small AoV. For example:

1200mm * 4 (3× TC) * APS-C = 97200mm effective, which works out to 0.0159° or 0.956 minutes of arc.

Anything less than 1 minute of arc would qualify as awfully damned small, I think.

I read this and did try to understand it.... the intelligence level of this thread needs brought down again!

Oh wait, I just posted! Phew! Problem solved!

MrsMcCoy28 wrote in post #10044016
My brain is burning.

That's what Brain Bleach is for. Jay, I think we need some over here!

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #10042701
Where do you think Roger gets all this from?

Not from Wikipedia!

I don't use disallowed sources; sources that, if cited in a patent application, mean an automatic rejection.

Wikipedia is sooooo accurate!

Cdeming wrote in post #10044029
Thanks! It didn't fall off, thank God. After the trauma of giving birth without drugs (I like to brag about that when I can ) I don't think I could have handled that!

Congrats! Did that for 19 hours drug-free, then ended up with an epidural because they made me have a c-section... I wasn't gonna let them gut me without drugs of some sort (of course, they wouldn't have let me continue drug-free either)

neilwood32 wrote in post #10043429
Which is normally more accurate!

I also got lost in the numbers - I work with numbers all day soseeing them during my lunch break tends to switch my brain off (if it was on in the first place

Scots have brains?!!